Forum:Vote for using set dates in info box
I’ve seen with in this wiki that the dates for certain games in info boxes and other things are different on certain pages. Specifically the years. Certain games have been released in different years. Here is the list. (Note this does not include Australian or remake release dates due to my lack of knowledge on Australian release dates and the fact that remakes would not be used in info boxes. All so I am not refering to the info boxes on the articles for the games. I am refering to the info boxes on the other pages) * The Legend of Zelda was released in 1986 in Japan but 1987 in Europe and America * Zelda II was released in 1987 in Japan but 1988 in America and Europe * A Link to the Past was released in 1991 in Japan but 1992 in America and Europe, similarly the game boy remake and Four Swords'' was released in 2002 in Japan and 2003 in America. *''The Wind Waker'' was released in 2002 in Japan but 2003 in America and Europe. *''Four Swords Adventures'' was released in 2004 in Japan and America and 2005 in Europe. *''The Minish Cap'' was released in 2004 in Japan and Europe but 2005 in America. *''Freshly-Picked Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland'' was released in 2006 in Japan and 2007 in Europe and does not appear as if it will be released in North America. We have few articles about this game but it is still confusing as to what year should be in the info boxes. So I propose using changing it so all article's info boxes for the above games are under the same year. As it stands most but not all are north American dates most likely due to the majority of users on the site being American but it has never to my knowledge been voted on before or confirmed in any ruled listing. So let’s get the votes started. Oni Link 16:09, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Sign with ~~~~ Votes Votes for using original Japanese dates # I would change it and it isn’t really a lot. We can’t be afraid to change because it involves work. As for the vote I think the original Japanese dates are the ones it should be. It is the year when the character or item first appeared and although this is an English wiki it isn’t American or English made games. Oni Link 20:19, September 11, 2009 (UTC) Votes for using North American dates # You do realize we already use the north american dates for everything right? Changing this would require YOU (yeah you brought it up, you get to fix it haha) to fix all the infobox dates.—'Triforce' 14 20:13, September 11, 2009 (UTC) # There are arguments for every side, so leaving it the way it is will be the most neutral way to go (not to mention the limited workload). And as for putting all of them in; its a bad idea. Maybe it would work for the game articles directly, but for the character pages and the like, you do not want to have to put "A Link to the Past (JA: 1991, NA: 1992, EU: 1992)". --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 21:44, September 11, 2009 (UTC) #Just leave it as is. '-- C2' / 21:48, September 11, 2009 (UTC) # The dates are up, and Europe has many languages, so only a fraction of europeans would go to this version. The dates should be added, but optional, not the mandatory date. (Does that make sense?) Ray Talk 2 me 01:31, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Votes for using European dates # The Americans are going to win anyways, so one vote for Europa doesn't really matter. But it's not like anyone can really get the release dates right anyways...right? --AuronKaizer ' 17:08, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Votes for using all dates #Works great for Wikipedia. 'Metroidhunter32 20:25, September 11, 2009 (UTC) Comments This is an English wiki: no Japanese dates. Most of us are in North America: no European dates. We use the North American because it's an English wiki and most of us are in North America. This discussion has been had a few times already. And we're already working on getting all of the years the same; I was changing ALttP years in infoboxes last night. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 16:13, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Yeah, if we change it now..... It'd be a long time before their all the same again.'-- C2' / 16:17, September 3, 2009 (UTC) europe is just as important as america. it might not be a japanesse wiki but japan is where the games do first come from and the info for years is useually in first apperances. anyway put comments in a vote first so we can get this sorted. and time is not a problem. there is a lot of pages yes but its only really one number we'll be changing each time.Oni Link 20:31, September 3, 2009 (UTC) Not saying that Europe or Japan are not important, but that the North American dates are the agreed upon standard for this wikia and have been for awhile. It's just that most of the editors are from North America, and as I assume because a large chunck of the readers who use this site, are from there as well, wouldn't it be more fitting to have the American dates? What I'm getting at is that using the Japanesse dates is redundant because this is an English wiki, and using the European dates makes a bit more sense(than Japanesse dates), but most of the editors are from the NA and wouldn't be a serious change up for them?'-- C2' / 15:28, September 4, 2009 (UTC) :if thats how ou feel then vote on it. it hasnt truly been agreed upon until now. Oni Link 16:39, September 4, 2009 (UTC) This doesn't require a vote; the system is already in place because it makes sense. Besides, Europe constitutes a large deal of countries. Not all of which speak English (i.e. France) as the native language. North America's native language is, however, English, most likely ahead of Spanish. I don't see the issue with the current system. —[[User:Baltro|'Baltro']] [ [[User Talk:Baltro|'talk']] · ] 16:53, September 4, 2009 (UTC) the only reason it should have north american dates is because there is more north american users and that can only work if it is voted upon. Oni Link 20:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC) Oni, I don't think you understand. We're not talking 10-15 articles, we're talking about potentially 2000+ articles that would have to have their infobox changed.—'Triforce' 14 20:39, September 11, 2009 (UTC) :there is only eight games and one of them is a four swords (we have maybe twenty articles on it) and another is tingles own game (we have about six articles on that and most dont even have info boxes). also many articles will double up for many games as the only real thing is their first apperance. this can be done with not as much effort as youd imagine. besides its only going to be changing one numberOni Link 20:44, September 11, 2009 (UTC) If you say so. I just wouldn't want to go through 2000+ articles and do that.—'Triforce' 14 20:49, September 11, 2009 (UTC) :It's great for the edit count. I'd probally say get a bot to do it though. Metroidhunter32 20:54, September 11, 2009 (UTC) Bot wouldn't work, believe me.—'Triforce' 14 21:00, September 11, 2009 (UTC) the work is not an issue. it can be done quite easily even if it is above the thousend mark and i would do it myself (although other people would make it a lot easyier). dont let the vastness of it influence your vote. Oni Link 21:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC) I know, I voted the way I thought it should be. Just pointing out the enormity of the project, should it be changed (heaven forbid O_o)—'Triforce' 14 21:07, September 11, 2009 (UTC)